| Literature DB >> 35746038 |
Adedapo Oluwasanu Adeola1,2,3, Philiswa Nosizo Nomngongo2,3.
Abstract
Water pollution remains one of the greatest challenges in the modern era, and water treatment strategies have continually been improved to meet the increasing demand for safe water. In the last few decades, tremendous research has been carried out toward developing selective and efficient polymeric adsorbents and membranes. However, developing non-toxic, biocompatible, cost-effective, and efficient polymeric nanocomposites is still being explored. In polymer nanocomposites, nanofillers and/or nanoparticles are dispersed in polymeric matrices such as dendrimer, cellulose, resins, etc., to improve their mechanical, thermophysical, and physicochemical properties. Several techniques can be used to develop polymer nanocomposites, and the most prevalent methods include mixing, melt-mixing, in-situ polymerization, electrospinning, and selective laser sintering techniques. Emerging technologies for polymer nanocomposite development include selective laser sintering and microwave-assisted techniques, proffering solutions to aggregation challenges and other morphological defects. Available and emerging techniques aim to produce efficient, durable, and cost-effective polymer nanocomposites with uniform dispersion and minimal defects. Polymer nanocomposites are utilized as filtering membranes and adsorbents to remove chemical contaminants from aqueous media. This study covers the synthesis and usage of various polymeric nanocomposites in water treatment, as well as the major criteria that influence their performance, and highlights challenges and considerations for future research.Entities:
Keywords: fabrication techniques; inorganic contaminants; organic pollutants; polymer nanocomposites; water treatment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746038 PMCID: PMC9231113 DOI: 10.3390/polym14122462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Six subclasses of dendritic polymeric material. Adapted with permission from Ma et al. [28]. Copyright (2016) Ivyspring International Publisher.
Figure 2PAMAM growth on magnetic chitosan nanoparticles. Adapted with minor modifications with permission from Wang et al. [32]. Copyright (2015) Elsevier.
Figure 3Covalent dendrimer synthesis using: (A) divergent synthetic route, (B) divergent synthetic route, (C) Combined approach (Adapted with permission from Lyu et al. [31]. Copyright (2019) Elsevier).
Various dendritic polymers used for the treatment of contaminated water.
| Dendritic Nanocomposites | Target Pollutant | Remediation Approach | Removal Capacity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAMAM/Graphene oxide | Adsorption | 568.18, 253.81, 68.68, 18.29 | [ | |
| Dendrimer-clay nanocomposite | Cr | Adsorption | 6–10 (mg/g) | [ |
| Polystyrene PAMAMiminodiacetic acid | Ni | Adsorption | 24.09 (mg/g) | [ |
| PAMAM-grafted cellulosenanofibril | Cr | Adsorption | 377.36 (mg/g) | [ |
| Hyperbranched PAMAM/polysulfone membrane | Cd | Ultrafiltration | 27.29 µg/cm2 | [ |
| Dendrimer/titania | Pb | Adsorption | 400 (mg/g) | [ |
| PAMAM-grafted core-shellmagnetic silica nanoparticles | Hg | Adsorption | 134.6 (mg/g) | [ |
| PAMAM dendrimers withethylenediamine (EDA) core | Cu | Ultrafiltration | 451 (mg/g) | [ |
| Amine terminated-Magneticcored dendrimer | Pb, Cd | Adsorption | 170.42, 75.15 (mg/g) | [ |
| Carbon nanotube-dendrimer | Pb, Cu | Adsorption | 3333–4320 (mg/g) | [ |
| Polyacrylonitrile/PAMAM composite nanofibers, | Adsorption | 2000 (mg/g) | [ | |
| Magnetic Chitosan/PAMAM | Reactive blue 21 | Adsorption | 555.56 (mg/g) | [ |
| PPI–grafted cotton fabrics | Direct red 80, Disperse yellow 42, Basic blue 9 | Adsorption | 143.3, 104.8, 105.8 (mg/g) | [ |
| PPI dendrimer | Direct red 80, Acid green 25, Acid blue 7, Direct red 23 | Adsorption | 33,333–50,000 (mg/g) | [ |
| Graphene oxide-PPI dendrimer | Acid red 14, Acid blue 92 | Adsorption | 434.78, 196.08 (mg/g) | [ |
| PAMAM–titaniananohybrid | Phenol | Adsorption | 77 (mg/g) | [ |
| PPI dendrimers functionalized with long aliphatic chains | Adsorption | 19, 67, 57 (mg/g) | [ | |
| Alkylated hyperbranched polymers | Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene | Adsorption | 6–54 (mg/g) | [ |
Figure 4A general method for the preparation of aerogels. Adapted from Nita et al. [71].
Figure 5Preparation of macroporous MnO2-based aerogel crosslinked with cellulose nanofibers. (a) scheme for the synthesis of cellulose nanofibers/MnO2 hybrid aerogels; (b–d) the height, diameter and density of cellulose nanofibers/MnO2 hybrid aerogel; (e) the SEM image of cellulose nanofibers/MnO2 hybrid aerogel. Adapted with permission from Cao et al. [75]. Copyright (2021) Elsevier.
Figure 6The primary steps for making hydrogels on a semi-pilot and industrial scale. Adapted from Ahmed et al. [76].
Selected hydrogel/aerogel nanocomposites for water treatment applications.
| Material Description | Core Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| MnO2 coated cellulose nanofibers | Oxidation occurred at acidic pH. Over 99.8% removal of methylene blue dye | [ |
| MnO2/graphene aerogel (GMA) | GMA had 100% adsorption of rhodamine B and 89.02% COD, compared to 73.80% and 59.65% for SMA (silica wool-MnO2 deposition) | [ |
| Poly(acrylic acid)/starch hydrogel | Adsorption of cadmium was best described by Langmuir (monolayer) adsorption model with a maximum adsorption capacity of 588 mg/g | [ |
| 3D MnO2 modified biochar-based porous hydrogels | Cd(II) and Pb(II) removal from aquatic and soil systems could be possible uses. Reusable and highly stable | [ |
| Cassava starch-based double network hydrogel | The high adsorption capacity of about 417 mg/g and adsorption performance of 70% after regeneration five times. Physically and mechanically stable. | [ |
| Chitosan-Gelatin based hydrogel | CH-GEL/ZSPNC (MW) eliminated 99% of cationic dye from the solution. The adsorption capacity of about 10.5 mg/g | [ |
| CdS amended nano-ZnO/chitosan hydrogel | For 5.0 mg/L, 95 percent of Congo Red was removed in 1 min. Pollutant removal is quick, with high apparent rate constants and good reusability. | [ |
| MnO2 NWs/chitosan hydrogels | Abundant sunlight absorption (94%). The conversion efficiency of sunlight to thermal energy (90.6%) | [ |
Figure 7Hydrogel adsorbent with starch-graft-poly(acrylamide)/graphene oxide/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite as constituent. Adapted from Hosseinzadeh and Ramin [80].
Figure 8Capabilities of different separation/adsorptive membranes using microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) processes. Adapted with permission from Hmtshirazi et al. [19]. Copyright (2022) Elsevier.
Selected polymeric membrane nanocomposites for water treatment applications.
| Polymeric Membrane | Treatment Technology | Target Pollutants | Core Process Conditions | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES-10- polyamide, NTR-729HF- polyvinyl alcohol | Reverse osmosis (RO) | As, Sb | As(V) and Sb(V) removals are substantially higher than As(III) and Sb(V) removals at pH 3–10. | [ |
| ES-10 and HS5110/HR3155 | Nanofiltration (NF)/RO | As | NF: pressure 0.2–0.7 MPa/RO: pressure 4 MPa | [ |
| NF90–4040 | NF | Cr, As | pH = 9, temp. 45 °C, pressure 3.1 MPa | [ |
| UiO-66 (Zr-MOF)/TFN | NF | Se, As | 1.15 L/m2·h/MPa | [ |
| The P[MPC-co-AEMA] co-polymer | NF | Se, As | 0.85 L/m2·h/MPa | [ |
| PVDF with melanin nanoparticles from the marine bacterium | Vacuum filtration (VF) | Hg, Cu, Cr, Pb | 45 °C; pH = 3 for Cr and pH = 5 for other metals; flow rate of 0.5 mL/min | [ |
| M-I | Micellar enhanced filtration (MEF) | Cu, Pb, Cd | Operating pressure 0.025 MPa; the flux 63,579 L/m2 h | [ |
| PAN- Polyacrylonitrile—Osmonic 100 kDa | Electro-ultrafiltration (EUF) | As | an averaged crossflow velocity of 0.1 m/s; pressure 0.098 MPa | [ |
| Desal AG-2540 RO, TFC-ULP-2540 RO, and TFC-SR2-2540 NF | NF/RO | Sr | Applied pressure 0.10–0.15 MPa, pH = 3–6 | [ |
| Polyelectrolyte multilayer membrane | NF | Mg, Sr, Ca, Ba | low ionic strength conditions (e.g., <50 mM NaCl as a background electrolyte); 0.345 MPa; crossflow velocity 21.4 cm/s; 25 °C. | [ |
| tubular Kerasep® ceramic membranę | Hybrid: Oxidation | Fe | Oxidation: 0.07 MPa; 20–22 °C; MF: tangential velocity 3.2 m/s; trans-membrane pressure 0.06–0.3 MPa; pH = 6.8–7.2; 20–22 °C | [ |
| PPSU—sulfonated polyphenylenesulfone polymer; TBF—triangle-shape tri-bore hollow fiber membranes | UF | Oil | Transmembrane pressure of 0.1 MPa; a flow rate of 300 mL/min along the lumen side; a velocity range of 2.58–2.81 m/s | [ |
| NiCo-LDH—nickel cobalt layered double hydroxide; PVDF—the polydopamine modified polyvinylidenefluoride membrane | Gravity-driven filtration | Soybean oil, petroleum ether, 1,2-dichloroethane, n-hexadecane | Glass sand core filter device; water-in-oil emulsions—the volume ratio of 1:99 | [ |
| APTES—3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane; ATPR—atomic transfer radical polymerization/Graphene oxide | Filtration | Oil | Polymerization with ATRP; a volume ratio of organics and water: 1:99; the pressure of 0.05 MPa; complex environments, such as 2 M HCl, 2 M NaOH and saturated NaCl; permeation flux 10,000 ± 440 L/m2·h·MPa | [ |
| Nanofibrous PVDF membrane | Gravity-driven filtration | Oil | Permeability 88 1660 ± 6520 L/m2·h·MPa; water-in-oil emulsions (chloroform, toluene, dichloromethane, and high viscosity oils: D4 and D5) | [ |
| TiO2-Nanoparticles/PVDF—polydopamine modified polyvinylidenefluoride membrane/TrFE—trifluoro ethylene | Photoreactor | Oily industrial wastewater | The flow rate 100.8 L/h; pH = 4–5.5 | [ |
| SiO2-NPs/PVDF | Separation | Oil | The pressure of 0.09 MPa; fluxes of over 10,000 L/m2 h | [ |
| PVDF—polydopamine modified polyvinylidenefluoride membrane | RO | Oil | The cross-flow velocity 2 m/s; operating pressure 6 MPa; crossflow membrane sequencing batch reactor inoculated with isolated tropical halophilic microorganisms | [ |
| Chitosan–SiO2–glutaraldehyde composite/PVDF- polydopamine modified polyvinylidenefluoride membrane | VDF system | Oil | Separation area ~1.6 cm2; the pressure 0.03 MPa. | [ |
| TiO2-NP/polydopamine modified polyvinylidenefluoride membrane | Separation | Petroleum ether; n-hexadecane; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene; diesel oil | Pressure difference of 0.09 MPa; separation area 1.77 cm2; permeation flux for SDS/oil/H2O emulsion: 428 L/m2∙h, 605 L/m2∙h, 524 L/m2∙h, 382 L/m2∙h respectively | [ |
Figure 9Removal of multiple contaminants selectively via an adsorptive membrane. Adapted from Salehi et al. [106].